Unfundamentalisthttp://unfundamentalists.com
Above All, LoveWed, 23 May 2018 04:38:38 +0000en-UShourly1https://i1.wp.com/unfundamentalists.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/unfundy.png?fit=32%2C32Unfundamentalisthttp://unfundamentalists.com
3232136604780If God Wants to Save Us, Why Isn’t Salvation Simple?http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/if-god-wants-to-save-us-why-isnt-salvation-simple/
http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/if-god-wants-to-save-us-why-isnt-salvation-simple/#respondWed, 23 May 2018 04:38:38 +0000http://unfundamentalists.com/?p=11252I know what you’re thinking: salvation is simple! After all, just look at John 3:16: God loved the world so much he sent his Son so that whoever believes in him will be saved. Surely that is simple, right? Read More »

I know what you’re thinking: salvation is simple! After all, just look at John 3:16: God loved the world so much he sent his Son so that whoever believes in him will be saved. Surely that is simple, right?

It might seem so, but the closer you look, the more that initial veneer of simplicity dissolves into an unsettling complexity.

What do you need to believe to be saved?

Let’s start with this question: what does it mean to believe in Jesus?

At first blush, Paul appears to provide a simple answer to that question in Romans 10:9: “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (NIV) So believe Jesus is Lord and God raised him back to life: that’s what you need to believe to be saved.

Simple? Actually, no, it isn’t.

Here’s the problem: there are many groups outside of historic, orthodox Christianity that affirm those two claims. Mormons, for example, profess to believe that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. Does that mean that Mormons are saved?

Many Christians believe the answer is no: Mormons aren’t saved. The reason is that while they may accept the claims of Romans 10:9, they also accept many other claims that are incompatible with orthodox Christianity. For example, Mormon theology asserts that God was once a human being who evolved to become God and that human beings can themselves become gods. These claims are directly opposed to Christian theology, and that conflict is considered by many people to be sufficient to overwhelm any benefit the Mormon might gain from affirming Romans 10:9.

However, if that is true, then it follows that Romans 10:9 does not provide a full summary of the belief requirements of salvation. It turns out that in addition to believing Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, you also need to disbelieve many other things, including the Mormon claim in evolving deities.

And with that, we find that we are back facing our original dilemma. What exactly is the full list of beliefs you need to accept and what is the full list of beliefs you need to deny in order to be saved? And why isn’t this clearer? Why should we have to debate this at all? Why aren’t the belief requirements of salvation indisputably clear and available to all?

How do you need to live to be saved?

As troubling as the question of belief is, there are other problems when it comes to salvation. For example, consider the question of good works. What do we need to do in order to be saved?

Again, a simple answer suggests itself. In this case, we can find that answer elegantly stated in Ephesians 2:8-9: “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast.”

And once again, after a closer look that initial simplicity dissolves. To be sure, we can all agree that the basis for salvation is Christ’s atoning work: we are not saved on account of our good works. Nonetheless, that does not change the fact that there are many warnings in Scripture which describe particular behaviors which are expected and even required of those who are saved by Christ.

To note one unsettling example, in Matthew 25 Jesus provides a sobering description of salvation and judgment with respect to two groups: the sheep who are welcomed into eternal life and the goats who receive punishment. Notably, Jesus never describes the sheep as those who believed the right doctrines. Rather, he identifies the sheep in terms of their actions, namely how they treat the poor, sick, imprisoned, and so on. I don’t know about you, but I can say that my track record on embracing the least of these is mixed, at best.

This focus on the ethical dimension of the life of discipleship is not limited to Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul provides another angle on moral action, and his treatment is no less unsettling than that of Jesus. He lists several behaviors that he warns will exclude a person from the kingdom of God. The list includes wrongdoers, the sexually immoral, idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers.

Paul’s kingdom exclusion sin list invites many questions. What exactly does it mean to be a wrongdoer? How greedy do you need to be for your greed to exclude you from the kingdom? Have you ever slandered or gossiped about anyone? Is lusting after a person sufficient to qualify you as sexually immoral? Jesus seems to say it is (Matthew 5:28). And just how much of this bad behavior is sufficient to undermine your salvation?

Perhaps the most disturbing fact of all is that we human beings tend to be rather adept at spotting sin in others but rather poor at spotting it in ourselves (Matthew 7:3-5). Given that fact, it seems possible that we might spend our lives deluding ourselves into thinking we’re walking a holy journey on the narrow road when, in fact, we’re sinners on the broad path to destruction.

When do you need to believe to be saved?

Many other questions about salvation arise in my mind but here I’ll consider just one more: when do you need to get your beliefs and actions in order so that you may be saved? This question hit me with renewed force some years ago when my daughter was born.

Evangelicals have long had a ready answer to this question: in short, they say that there is an age of accountability. Prior to this age, children do not need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved, but once they cross that accountability threshold, God expects right belief and holy living.

The fact is, however, that you won’t find a verse in scripture which clearly teaches an age of accountability. And if there is such a threshold of accountability, when is it? Unfortunately, there is absolutely no consensus on this question. As a result, the birth and rearing of children occur in the shadow of possible damnation.

No wonder my parents were insistent that I pray a sinner’s prayer when I was five years old: better to be safe than sorry!

Conclusion

In one sense, salvation is simple. At least, it is simple if we focus on the general fact that God sent his Son to die for our sins so that we might be saved. But once you apply that general truth to the particularities of an individual life, that simplicity begins to dissolve. In its place we are left with a myriad of questions like these: Precisely what do you need to believe (and not believe) in order to be saved? How do you need to live? Are there sins that undermine your salvation altogether? Are there sins that undermine your salvation when they reach a particular level of frequency? And if so, when is that? Finally, when are you morally accountable for your beliefs and actions?

I’ve been wrestling with these questions for forty years. I started the journey as a child. It continued as I grew into a teenager and then went off to university. I’ve now been a seminary professor for sixteen years and, while I don’t have it all figured out – far from it! – I recently wrote my own answers to these questions in the book What’s So Confusing About Grace?

Through it all, two things are clear to me. First, God is infinitely more loving, merciful, and wise than I can ever imagine. And second, however it is that the salvation of each individual is to be understood, that understanding must be consistent with God’s infinite love, mercy, and wisdom. And that’s good news, indeed.

]]>http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/if-god-wants-to-save-us-why-isnt-salvation-simple/feed/011252More Guilt? Yes, Please! How Our Church Has Co-Opted Shame and Disguised It as Guilthttp://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/more-guilt-yes-please-how-our-church-has-co-opted-shame-and-disguised-it-as-guilt/
http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/more-guilt-yes-please-how-our-church-has-co-opted-shame-and-disguised-it-as-guilt/#respondMon, 21 May 2018 04:38:38 +0000http://unfundamentalists.com/?p=11241Guilt is a pro-social reaction to how our actions affect others. Guilt helps us make our way through the world -- it is the internal compass of our decision making. Read More »

Have you ever heard the phrase “near-enemy” used before? No? Well, a near-enemy is when two things look very similar but are intrinsically different. I first read the phrase in a Louise Penny book, where she wrote about a woman who appeared compassionate and caring, but in fact wanted others to be totally helpless so they would need her. The woman seemed to have good intentions, but she was, in fact, hurting others so that she could receive gratitude from them. A near-enemy appears to be one thing while in reality it is another; it masquerades as a more noble version of itself.

Shame, in my opinion, is the near-enemy of guilt. Shame is a debilitating sense of humiliation or sadness; it immobilizes us and disintegrates our confidence. Guilt, on the other hand, is a pro-social reaction to how our actions affect others. Guilt helps us make our way through the world — it is the internal compass of our decision making.

Our churches have co-opted shame and parade it as guilt.

Here is an example. When I was little, I was told that to have a sexual thought in my mind was just as bad as if I committed the act (see Purity Culture). That’s an idea with a biblical basis (see Matt. 5:28). So, every time I had an even remotely sexual thought, I felt ashamed of myself. I was ashamed of my body, of my mind, and genuinely believed I was a bad person because of it.

Logically, this idea is absolutely ridiculous! Natural responses to stimuli from the world around us shouldn’t be morally policed. I developed depression as an adolescent and I believe this type of thinking played a large part in that, because it extended into so many areas of my life. No matter how hard I tried, I saw myself as a “bad person,” because all I could do was fail the impossible standards the church set for me. I was trapped in a body that, I felt, kept betraying me. I could never achieve the behavior that I thought God wanted from me; which, apparently, was a totally sexless, emotionally unaffected, and endlessly generous saint — a goal I’ve since given up.

No wonder I was depressed! I’m lucky to have had some amazing counselors and fellow people of faith who’ve been able to speak into my life and start to put an end to that horrible way of thinking. I know I still have so much damage to undo, and more shame to deconstruct and put to rest.

Shame is a self-destructive cycle; guilt is a pro-social feeling.

Shame is a feeling of humiliation, of hopelessness, that can become chronic. It can poison us and erode any sense of our own goodness. Guilt, however, helps us to learn from our mistakes; it invites us to reflect on how we treat others, their feelings and needs (hence it is “pro-social”). Guilt also motivates us to apologize, and experiencing it allows us to forgive more easily. When we understand what it means to be on the offending side, to experience guilt, we also come to understand what it means to be repentant.

Let’s return to our example. If I had been sexually active at the time, the questions I should have asked include: How do my actions affect others? What are my intentions? Am I honoring myself and my sexual partner? Am I respecting them, their body, and their autonomy? Do I see them as a whole person or just a sexual object?

If I had indeed been harming others with my actions, then my concern would have been warranted. But that wasn’t the case, instead I was immobilized by shame, which prevented me from honoring myself the way God made me — a sexual being.

There is no repentance without guilt.

Nowadays, we see folks leaving the churches of their childhood, saying, “I can’t stand the guilt.” A church in Calgary even has a sign outside it that says “We don’t do guilt!” Theoretically, I love that, but I wish I could cross out the word “guilt” and pencil overtop the word “shame.”

I hope I’ve convinced you that guilt isn’t a bad thing. It’s a big part of living in community and doing justice work. In both instances, we invite people to reflect on their actions, and, if necessary, repent. We can never be truly repentant if we don’t have guilt. If we repent because we’re terrified of an eternity of pain, then we’re only paying lip service to a God who controls us with fear. Guilt is about wanting to be in good relation with the world around us — our neighbors, our God, the earth — making amends, and choosing a better path.

So, let’s put the guilt back in church!

I want to hear folks shouting like the biblical prophets at people who put their greed over the lives of their human family. I want to see folks feeling convicted (i.e. guilty) because they’ve helped to propagate white supremacy, which harms people in countless ways. I want men to feel the pang of guilt when they realize the ways they’ve contributed to misogyny in their lives. Then, I want all of us to do something about it. Shame festers and immobilizes, whereas guilt calls us to new ways of life and relationship. Honestly, that sounds a lot like the Gospel.

Photo by Dan Wilkinson.

Selina Mullin is a seminary student at the United Theological College in Montréal. She is a queer disabled white woman who is passionate about spiritual care, intersectional feminism and playing her ukulele. You can follow her preaching and writing at selinamullin.com.

]]>http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/more-guilt-yes-please-how-our-church-has-co-opted-shame-and-disguised-it-as-guilt/feed/011241Greeting My Anti-Gay Ghostshttp://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/greeting-my-anti-gay-ghosts/
http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/greeting-my-anti-gay-ghosts/#respondThu, 17 May 2018 04:34:29 +0000http://unfundamentalists.com/?p=11235I have a secret, which I have not shared with anyone at the church where I serve, until now: I have been baptized twice. Read More »

I have a secret, which I have not shared with anyone at the church where I serve, until now: I have been baptized twice. Once as an infant, at a Presbyterian church in New Jersey, and once as a 17-year-old, through a “Bible church” in my Texas hometown. Under the influence of that church’s youth group, I came to believe that the baptism of an infant isn’t really a baptism and thus, at age 17, I had not yet obeyed the biblical command to be baptized. My father, a professor of theology, expressed his disagreement with the reasoning behind my decision, but I remained undeterred: I was not going to let this divine command go unheeded.

My River Jordan was the town’s local pool. Hands I trusted as much as any dipped my body under the water and then lifted me up, to the cheers of a large crowd that included family and some of my closest friends. Through their spirit of celebration, I felt the Spirit descend on me, and through the hands of my youth pastor, I felt the voice from Heaven say, “This is my son, with whom I am well pleased.”

A few years later, removed from the religious influence of that youth group, I changed my mind: every tradition of baptism is true and beautiful in its own way, and so my second baptism was unnecessary — and the exclusionary theology behind it problematic. Even so, I do not regret going down to the River Jordan a second time. Now, ten years later, a new gift has surfaced in that holy pool water. Almost every day, it floats toward me. On my better days, I manage to grab hold of it.

At age 17, I was my youth group’s golden boy. I led worship, helped to organize events, and mentored and taught middle school students. My youth pastor and I ate meals together, saw movies together, laughed a lot, fought once or twice. I got the impression that he thought of me as a spiritual protégé, and I certainly thought of him as a spiritual parent. On more than one occasion, I accidentally called him “Dad.”

Not long after my second baptism, at a time when I was mired in angst over my sexuality, I heard my youth pastor say that there is no such thing as a gay Christian. Five years later, with those words still haunting me, I came out publicly as gay. He and I have not spoken since then.

Every so often, my mind wanders back into a graveyard of memories: the judgment dealt, the mistrust felt, the gifts of fellowship withdrawn. It isn’t a scary place for me to be anymore; I can wander out just as easily as I wandered in, and I now have a safe home to which I can return. But even as I leave the graveyard and head back home, bitterness and indignation flare up in my soul, which incites another kind of haunting. In those moments, I try to remember my second trip to the River Jordan — how special it felt, how evident the Spirit was. The gift of that memory keeps me from raging at my ghosts for too long. One day, I hope that it will help me to forgive.

* * * * *

When I was discerning my call to ordination, I met regularly with a long-time pastor who is also gay. In one of our meetings, I shared at length about my past in a conservative evangelical youth group. After listening to me speak as if I had survived the greatest drought in human history, he responded with a question that caught me off-guard. Apparently, he suspected that it might catch me off-guard, because he prefaced it with “You don’t have to answer this question right now, or ever, but … are you still carrying any of the gifts that your youth group gave you?”

I was expecting something more along the lines of “Oh, those small-minded dummies. I’m so glad you’re rid of them now.” Plenty of people have said that to me, and if I want to hear it again, I know where to go. Far fewer people have invited me to recall and to celebrate ways in which God showed up in my wilderness.

It’s not easy to remember seasons of drought with a smile. Nor is it advisable to give thanks for a hand that has slapped you, to befriend an enemy who has tried to destroy your life. But that is precisely what LGBTQ+ Christians are doing. We are making a home in a tradition that has been, on the whole, overwhelmingly hostile toward us. Like the exiled Hebrew people who God invited to settle down in Babylon, we are choosing to dwell and striving to flourish in what often looks like an unpromising land. And yet, we believe that it has been promised to us. And somehow, we keep finding holy water here — even as our neighbors try to withhold it from us.

* * * * *

I have no idea what my youth pastor is thinking these days. Perhaps his theology of sexuality has opened up a bit, or perhaps he is as contemptuous as ever of us LGBTQ+ folk. At this point, it doesn’t make much of a difference to me — or at least I don’t think it should. The Spirit that descended at our River Jordan is still moving, the voice from Heaven is still speaking, and I want to focus on following it, not on looking backwards and seeing how someone else is making sense of it (or not).

Every once in a while, though, I do wonder what he makes of that day; what he makes of what his hands did, and what our hands did together; what he makes of God’s work in me, in him, in us; and — I dare say — what the Holy Ghost might do between us down the road.

Photo via Unsplash.

William Stell is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Bordentown, NJ. He has written for Huffington Post’s Queer Voices section, Religion Dispatches, Geez Magazine, and www.religioussocialism.org. Connect with him on Twitter: @wmstell.

]]>http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/greeting-my-anti-gay-ghosts/feed/011235The Invisible Listenershttp://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/the-invisible-listeners/
http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/the-invisible-listeners/#commentsMon, 07 May 2018 04:38:51 +0000http://unfundamentalists.com/?p=11228This piece is written to those of you who write on the Internet about Grace. People who write about the Love of God. People who write to encourage others; to build them up, not tear them down. Read More »

This piece is written to those of you who write on the Internet about Grace. People who write about the Love of God. People who write to encourage others; to build them up, not tear them down.

I am a member of several online groups where people of the Spirit voice things from God, things new and old. Old widsom, and new wisdom. (Matt 13:52) Things for the building up of the Saints (Eph 4:12). Jesus Himself said that there was so much more He wanted to tell us (Jn 16:12), and this kind of publishing is part of that.

Much of this stuff is the prophetic Word of God for today, and you can tell by the fruits manifested in their readers that these words are bringing life to those that read them.

But there is also huge discouragement, and often even despair, for those who write. If you are one of these writers, you will know exactly what I’m talking about.

On your public posts, whether blog posts or simple forum comments, you are often torn to shreds by (sometimes well-meaning) religious people who don’t like what they read. The Scripture says that people would be offended by the message of Jesus, and this can happen for several reasons.

Mostly, though, the offense is found in the simplicity of the Gospel message; St. Paul simply preached Christ crucified. However it works, Jesus has accomplished all that is necessary for the way to be open to God, and He invites us into His Presence and to live our lives in the simple joy of walking with Him.

And this is counterintuitive. We humans naturally feel that surely there must be something we have to do, some sacrifice we have to make, something we can feel, think, do or say that somehow will make God more pleased with us.

But, actually, no, there isn’t. He’s already more pleased with you than you can possibly imagine! And that’s what is so offensive to people: that nothing they can do — or not do — will make them any more or less acceptable to God.

And so, I would like to encourage all my readers here today who write for Jesus.

People like me, who share regular blog posts containing what we believe to be the truth about God and how much He loves us, and how especially fond He is of us. People who write occasional pieces just expressing how they are feeling and how God is meeting them right where they are at.

Or people who just build up others by sharing simple, gentle encouragement, whether in online forums, blogs, or even just in gentle Facebook replies.

To all such people I would say this:

Listen: your posts are encouraging far more people than you realize!

You are blessing hundreds and thousands of people simply by writing your gentle words of Grace!

When I post on the Internet and my posts are attacked by the religious gatekeepers, modern-day Pharisees, or maybe just those who are secretly uncertain of their faith and feel that my words shake their foundations — and reply with violence because they feel threatened — I don’t let it worry me.

Because I know that my posts have been read by my intended audience — not the Pharisees, but those who are broken, hurting, feeling rejected by the prim-and-proper religious elite. Those of “different” sexualities. Those who have received abuse at the hands of people who should have been healing them.

I gently challenge the people who attack me, not to try to turn them or convince them — God will do that for them in His own time; indeed, only He can do it anyway — but to let those thousands of “invisible listeners” and “lurkers” know that not all Christians are like those people who cause harm with their harsh words.

There are indeed Christians — you are likely one of them — who gently manifest the presence of Jesus in their writings, and, to those bloggers and respondents who want to be Jesus to others, I would say this:

“Keep it up!”You are touching many more people with God’s love than you can possibly realize!

I will leave you with a comment that was sent to me by a brother in New Zealand, to encourage me about my website, VintageWorshipTapes. On that site, I restore and make available electronic recordings of old worship tapes from the seventies, eighties, and nineties. The comment still moves me to tears even now. Here’s what he said:

“One day, when we are in His Presence, you will find out just how many people were encouraged by what you are doing.”

Wow! And I think that’s today’s take-home message for all those who would encourage people online. Be blessed.

Tony Cutty is the author of the blog Flying in the Spirit. He works as a professional scientist as well as running his own small business. He’s also a pianist, worship leader, light aircraft Pilot, military historian and amateur astronomer. He has three grown-up children and two grandchildren, and lives in the south-west of England.

]]>http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/05/the-invisible-listeners/feed/111228Doubts Are a Serious Problemhttp://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/doubts-are-a-serious-problem/
http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/doubts-are-a-serious-problem/#respondThu, 26 Apr 2018 04:36:51 +0000http://unfundamentalists.com/?p=11214Being raised in a religious community, I was given a particular understanding of what faith was. Primarily, faith was the amount of certainty one placed in the supernatural. Read More »

Being raised in a religious community, I was given a particular understanding of what faith was. Primarily, faith was the amount of certainty one placed in the supernatural. From my Protestant tradition, the most important form the supernatural took was the Bible. So, faith was often equated with how much certainty one placed on the inerrancy of the Bible. Faith was also defined by one’s certainty of “things unseen” — not simply stating that there were things unseen, but that they took a particular form derived from a particular reading of the Bible.

The consequence of measuring faith by one’s certainty is that it defines its opposite as doubt. The more someone doubts the Bible’s claims about the supernatural, the less faith they have — the fewer the doubts, the “stronger” the faith. This so-called strong faith was valued in my communities growing up. Those with strong faiths led in my churches, Christian schools, missionary trips, and social groups. They were role models to be praised and emulated.

An expression of doubt indicated that someone had a weaker faith, that they were “struggling.” And, because the Christian faith was the source of morality, a weak faith would lead to “backsliding” into immoral behavior. Doubts lead to sin, and so they were condemned as a sin. And, as such, doubts were seen as the work of Satan.

A person who expressed doubt was treated with the appearance of love and caring concern. But, despite claims of being in a safe community, voicing doubts was implicitly discouraged. The caring smiles of those with a stronger faith disguised what I eventually perceived was actually deep-seated fear. A doubt shared might cause others to doubt. A doubter was a threat to the community. A person of “weak” faith was a serious problem that needed to be solved. Doubts were constantly prayed against, cast out of people, and “defeated.” Their concerns were dealt with safely behind closed doors or in small groups — never on stage. And so doubts and doubters alike were often quickly minimized, sequestered, and silenced.

The clear message I received early in life was that doubt would push me to the outskirts of my community. If I doubted, I would be pitied, feared, and marginalized. I would fear myself as a conduit of the works of the evil one. To be spiritually safe, admired, and included in my community, I needed to shun doubt as much as sin.

The outcome of this understanding of faith is toxic. It has been a major source of spiritual trauma and abuse. People are taught that they are a problem to be solved. Doubts breed fear — fear of exclusion and damnation. Doubts breed shame — internally shamed about the state of one’s own soul and externally shamed by the community.

The degree of this fear and shame can span from a low-grade, chronic erosion of the soul to an explosive and violent destruction of a person’s psyche and self-worth. Viewing doubt as the opposition to faith is counterproductive to spiritual health, psychological well-being, and the creation of a truly supportive spiritual community.

The fatal flaw in this framework is equating faith with certainty and believing that the opposite of faith is doubt. This could not be more backwards. The opposite of faith is not doubt — it is certainty.

Why has American Christianity fallen into this counterintuitive concept of faith? I believe there are several factors at work:

It prioritizes post-enlightenment approaches to understanding matters of faith.

Post-enlightenment rationalism is very effective for understanding the natural world. This type of thinking gave us the scientific process. If we break down a system into its component parts we gain knowledge that allows us to develop technologies that advance human flourishing. Post-enlightenment thinking relies on evidence in order to draw conclusions.

In the face of challenges to the Bible by scientific discovery, American Christianity has reacted by applying post-enlightenment methodologies to matters of faith. It has attempted to infuse the Christian faith with rationalism in order to develop evidence and proofs for things unseen (apologetics). It made faith the function of the brain’s left hemisphere, which applies a reductionist methodology to make the mystery of the Divine fully explicable. Unfortunately, this placed unattainable expectations on matters of faith, which, by definition, are not comprehensible in this manner.

It makes mental professions of beliefs the linchpin of faith.

Applying post-enlightenment thinking in a systematic theological format, Arminian Christianity came to prioritize mental processes as critical to the faith. Salvation is dependent upon an individual mentally assenting to a set of propositions or else facing eternity in the fires of hell. Professing belief (which is a mental act) in the “Four Spiritual Laws” or praying “The Sinner’s Prayer” is the central function of conversion to the faith, escaping damnation, and entering into eternal life in heaven. Being a member of the eternal community of faith is dependent upon the functioning of neural networks in the human brain. Modern Western Christianity made the stakes very high that the brain gets it right.

A difficulty for many Arminians is wondering if they’ve thought the right thoughts (i.e. prayed the right words and understood the correct concepts). There is no proof that they’ve done it right. There is no receipt that the transaction occurred. They are left to rely only on the level of their certainty that they have done it correctly. As a result, doubts are seen as evidence against certainty. If one is not certain, then perhaps they don’t truly believe. If they don’t truly believe, then their mental profession of faith has failed, and they may be damned to hell. No wonder why doubts are feared!

It was for this reason that I was drawn to Calvinism in my early 20s (which I have since abandoned). I had difficulty with the concept that mental processes and neurologic functioning resulted in changing the mind of God regarding our eternal destiny. Calvinism teaches that God is sovereign, and that salvation is a work of God, not of man. We do not choose God, God chooses us. A mental profession of faith is a “work of man” and is not sufficient for salvation. Doubts concern Calvinists less since eternal destiny is not in their hands, but, for me at that time, doubts only made me fear that I was not one of the elect.

It claims hell is the consequence of not having faith.

The doctrine of hell, defined as eternal conscious torment, is likely the driving force behind the need for certainty. We are naturally addicted to certainty, however, hell is one helluva motivator to be in the right tribe. Granted, if one believes in that kind of hell, then it is impossible not to fear doubts. They are indicative that either your profession of faith is potentially insincere (Arminianism) or that you are not one of God’s elect (Calvinism). I do not think I could assuage the fears of any Christian holding to this doctrine.

The opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty. The fact of the matter is that all people have doubts whether they are acknowledged or not. Those who claim certainty are simply not acknowledging their assumptions — and we all have assumptions.

Biblical scholar Peter Enns recommends that we understand faith not as certainty, but as trust (I highly recommend his book, The Sin of Certainty). William Paul Young (author of The Shack) said,

“We’re locked inside the narrowness of our paradigms, because frankly we want certainty, we don’t want trust. And trust is the big journey. We’re so stuck in our heads, that we’ve turned belief into the home that we’ve built inside of our own minds that have become prisons to us. And it’s all of this intellectual rationality rather than the mystery and the ambiguity of actual trust.”

One of the major problems with evangelical fundamentalism is the focus on doctrine over love — the need to be right over right living. It is trying to be certain in the wrong things. It has forgotten that the primary thrust of Jesus’s message was that love supplants the law, rules, doctrine, and even tribe.

The original purpose of the law was to give structure to a people for the best way to live. It was like a finger pointing to the moon. However, the law itself had become the point. The finger became the point, and they forgot about the moon.

Jesus criticized most those who adhered to doctrines at the expense of caring for their neighbor. But Western Christianity placed certainty in specific doctrines back on the pedestal. It took the message of Jesus and ironically created a new law — be in this religion (“faith”), think these thoughts to avoid hell, follow these moralistic rules, etc. The problem for most Christians today is that they confuse their doctrines for faith — confusing the finger for the moon.

It is much easier now for me to doubt these new laws and doctrines when their fruit is shame, fear, and exclusion. It is much harder to doubt love, care for our neighbor, and inclusive community. Jesus taught us to ignore religion when it contradicted love (e.g. the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath). In those situations, the best course is to trust in right living.

I picture a belief as a butterfly I hold in my hands. White-knuckled gripping squeezes the life out of it. Holding a belief with an open hand allows it to live, breathe, and move. Embracing uncertainty as a simple, unavoidable fact and holding beliefs with an open hand can bring surprising peace. I prefer to trust God — to trust that love is truly supreme, to trust that all humans are of equal inherent value, and to trust that the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice. That, to me, is faith, and it leaves room for doubt.

“Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith. They keep it awake and moving.”
—Frederick Buechner, author and theologian

“Not all those who wander are lost.”
—J.R.R. Tolkein

Photo via Stocksnap.

Jacob Turnquist is a physician specialized in allergy and pediatrics. He is an introverted Enneagram 5 with a penchant for craft beer who always needs more time for reading. He lives in North Carolina with his wife and children. His essays can be found at stilliamlearning.com.

]]>http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/doubts-are-a-serious-problem/feed/011214Fundamentalism Tells You Food Is Good While Taking Away Your Ability to Tastehttp://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/fundamentalism-tells-you-food-is-good-while-taking-away-your-ability-to-taste/
http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/fundamentalism-tells-you-food-is-good-while-taking-away-your-ability-to-taste/#respondMon, 23 Apr 2018 04:40:46 +0000http://unfundamentalists.com/?p=11207Sometimes I think fundamentalism invites you to a banquet of food but takes away your ability to taste. "This dish is really yummy," they tell you, describing the flavors and texture in exquisite detail, and then demand you trust that they are right. Soon enough, you're gaslit into believing you are enjoying delicious cuisine. Read More »

Fundamentalists claim that unless we submit to the Bible as the Word of God, we cannot have objective morality. Our sense of right and wrong would be subject to personal taste or popular opinion.

I think this essentially becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who grow up in fundamentalism rely on the external authority of other people’s interpretation of the Bible and morality. We are taught to DISREGARD our personal ideas, and we lose the ability to discern which opinions are worth our attention.

It is an insidious vicious cycle to keep people from functioning out of their own moral agency and stay under the control of religious gatekeepers. This is the reason for the arrested development of many fundamentalist adults, that they continue to rely on external authorities to dictate their everyday choices.

Breaking free from it takes time and incremental steps for a lot of us. It took me years to reclaim a strong sense of agency over my own spirit, mind, and body–to trust, once again, that I can discern for myself which ideas are compelling, what activities are worth engaging in, and who gets to be an influence in my life.

Contrary to popular fundamentalist opinion, gaining self-agency doesn’t mean we become free-for-all selfish beings who float around in hedonistic airs without purpose or moral grounding. It means putting back together a robust integrity of personhood that was broken by abusive religious teachings. And it means we can participate in the communities of our choosing with our whole selves–learning to discern the next right thing without shame along the process.

Sometimes I think fundamentalism invites you to a banquet of food but takes away your ability to taste. “This dish is really yummy,” they tell you, describing the flavors and texture in exquisite detail, and then demand you trust that they are right. Soon enough, you’re gaslit into believing you are enjoying delicious cuisine.

Until one day, you find yourself in front of a banquet table again and, after painstaking inner work, you have your taste back. After trying many different foods you’ve figured out which is your favorite, so you put a giant spoonful in your mouth. You roll it around with your tongue, savoring each spark of flavor before ingesting, and the realization hits: I love this food because I learned to know my own tastes and decided for myself to eat it. I know it tastes good not because others described it for me but because I can taste the goodness.

The best evangelists don’t shove food in your face telling you it is good and forcing you to eat it. They prepare the banquet table and tell you to decide for yourself, and then they sit down at the table beside you when you find your favorite dish.

]]>http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/fundamentalism-tells-you-food-is-good-while-taking-away-your-ability-to-taste/feed/011207Laughing Out Loudhttp://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/laughing-out-loud/
http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/laughing-out-loud/#respondWed, 18 Apr 2018 04:38:05 +0000http://unfundamentalists.com/?p=11200A friend of mine said recently that the Christ seed that was planted in my heart a long long time ago has taken root and is pushing its way upward. Read More »

A friend of mine said recently that the Christ seed that was planted in my heart a long long time ago has taken root and is pushing its way upward.

Here is one example of that “pushy Jesus.” In our “Listening to the Gospel” group this week I had an almost, but not quite, out-of-body experience. I heard Jesus knocking on the door of my study where five of us were sitting in a circle. He was not content to knock. He walked right in and I started laughing.

I laughed because all that I could imagine was the five of us saying what other people say to Jesus when he shows up unexpectedly. “Not in our neighborhood. Not in our circle. Not in our church. You are not what we expected and besides, you are messing up our meditation. Your knocking is way too loud.”

Who wants to see Jesus with scarred-up hands and feet and a hungry belly? Who wants to hear that he is not interested in talking about the pearly gates and how the people we love are waiting for us in heaven? He is still stuck on “welcome the stranger” and “repent and forgive.” No wonder the disciples, then and now, find ourselves more comfortable in our own circles, with the door closed, grieving the past. The present manifestation of Jesus in the world has always been shocking and more than inconvenient.

Easter came this year on April Fool’s Day and each week of Eastertide the resurrection story gets funnier and funnier. This week it is something like this: “Knock knock. Who’s there? It is I Jesus. Jesus who? Jesus who won’t stop knocking. Knock knock. Who’s there? It is us friends. Friends who? Friends who show up even when we’re scared to live.”

Resurrection is the experience of shifting from being scared to live to opening the door when someone knocks and busts in to surprise us. Resurrection is going where Spirit goes and finding that where we are, Spirit is.

About Marguerite Sheehan
Rev. Marguerite Sheehan is a United Church of Christ pastor presently serving Trinity Church, an ecumenical church in Shelburne Falls MA. She blogs at reverendmarguerite.wordpress.com and also writes a pastoral column for the Shelburne Falls West County Independent newspaper. She is a pastor, preacher, wife, lesbian feminist, mother, friend and grandmother.

It has long perplexed me. How is this possible? What manner of cognitive dissonance is capable of such amazing mental gymnastics? What devilry, what witchcraft is afoot here? Here there be demons for sure, but where? It was like listening to one’s kind and sweet Grandmother talking about kittens and rainbows who suddenly shouts out an expletive. Then it finally dawned on me: this used to be me!

Not only was I a rabid 1980s Moral Majority Republican who actively campaigned for local Republican candidates, I was a 1990s consumer of right-wing talk radio. When, in the late 90s, Fox News debuted, I became a several-hours-per-day viewing addict. Other than occasional movies and sports, it was what I primarily watched in the evenings.

I lived in an echo chamber, a bubble of noisy, white, male, patriotic anger. Who was I angry with? Liberals. Feminists. Democrats. Hillary. Muslims. Obama. Immigrants. Environmentalists. Hillary. College professors. Atheists. Anyone who dared disrespect the flag or America. Hillary. Anyone I didn’t think supported law enforcement or the military. Hillary. Anyone I didn’t think supported the Second Amendment and gun rights. Did I say “Hillary”?

While this echo chamber was a combination of fundamentalist/evangelical books/ministries, conservative talk radio, and right-wing websites, the largest of these funnels was Fox News. Fox News had the biggest soap box and the loudest megaphone. And I loved it. At last, some media out there who reinforced, gave voice to, what I already believed and thought.

Fox made me feel good about my prejudices. Fox also made me feel aggrieved. Finally, someone who noticed how persecuted I was, what, with people saying, “Happy Holidays” and all. They stood up for God and country … and white people. Never mind that God, the ground of all being, doesn’t need defending or that our country is the most powerful in the world. And how is it that white people, males especially, needed defending? Talk about snowflakes. As if they haven’t had the loudest voices and power for centuries.

Anyway, Fox also made it clear who the enemies were. I didn’t have to think about it too much. It was presented clearly by all the attractive women anchors and the handsome, square-jawed Sean Hannity. These were the good guys; these people were “winners.” It was like a show staffed with articulate quarterbacks and cheerleaders. This was the winning news team.

And now, looking back in complete embarrassment, I can say without hesitation it was mostly propagandistic hogwash. I haven’t watch Fox News in at least fifteen years. Now, if I ever run across it, if it’s on in someone’s home, or a bar or restaurant, I watch it like someone might watch monkeys at the zoo, for entertainment. Oh look, they’re throwing their feces again.

By the way, yes, I do know there are some decent people at Fox. Just not Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, or any others reprimanded, forced out, or fired over sexual harassment or other egregious actions or remarks. Also, for other sober reflections regarding Fox, see here and here.

But my thoughtless intake of Fox News explains so much. It explains how I could be a nice and thoughtful Christian one moment, easily conversant with the Bible and Christian narrative in general, well aware of the primacy to defend the poor, the oppressed, the stranger, marginalized, orphan, and widow … to an angry, right-wing jerk if one brought up the political realm and my supposed “enemies” who, it turns out, were some of those very people we were supposed to defend.

In one moment, I could talk about how the statement “Jesus is Lord” was a political statement. How such a declaration had a deep political meaning, as in, we do not worship emperors, presidents, or nation/states. We are good citizens; we pay our taxes and obey the laws, but we are also citizens of the world and a universal or catholic church. Our true identity is not “American” or “Mexican” (or whatever) but child of God. We are citizens of heaven first, and our brothers and sisters are everywhere. Our ultimate identity is not found in ethnicity, blood, soil, or cultural history.

And, in the next moment, if someone brought up something I thought unpatriotic, I could completely forget all that and respond with ignorant sentiments like, “Hey, this is America, love it or leave it.” And don’t even get me started about people disrespecting our flag or (gasp!) kneeling during the National Anthem. Yep, my theology would go right out the window as I would bray as loud as the other “America-First-ers” to prove my patriotism. Good job Fox for your expert creation and discipleship of nationalists, i.e. idol worshippers (Babylon Bee gets it and so does the Washington Post).

It was like Jekyll and Hyde. It was only after I slowly began to wean myself from fundamentalist/evangelical sources of political information, and from the right-wing echo chamber, that I began to see my Mr. Hyde self. And I didn’t like what I saw. I stopped watching Fox News and I stopped listening to right-wing talk radio. I went cold turkey.

Afterward, the first thing I noticed was how less angry I was. I began to see the marginalized, the “other,” differently. Or, I should say, I allowed my views in these areas to align better with the Gospel than Fox. I listened more. I considered the idea that, while I should “seek the welfare of the city,” I should also not overlook her faults or shortcomings. And that to do so, even protest, was not being unpatriotic. In fact, it was the best type of patriotism. Bottom line: Nationalism is heretical.

A word of counsel to those still within the fundamentalist/evangelical world or those coming out (to anyone really): Turn Off Fox News. Get your news from credible, respected, sources. Especially seek out written sources of news where the bombast, anger, drama, and celebrity so common to television/cable news are removed. Avoid sources from the extreme Right or Left.

We have Protestants (and many variations therein), Catholics, and Orthodox. Unfortunately, we can now add a mutant/heretical variant to all these: Fox News Christians.

Brother, sister: Don’t be a Fox-News-Christian.

Photo of FoxNews.com by Dan Wilkinson.

About Darrell Lackey
Darrell Lackey has served as a lead pastor and currently works in the private sector. He is a graduate of the University of San Francisco and Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (Now Gateway). You can follow him or read more of his writings at Divergence (A journey out of funda-gelicalism). He and his wife reside in Northern California.

]]>http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/fox-news-christians/feed/011191Real Christians Forgivehttp://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/real-christians-forgive/
http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/real-christians-forgive/#respondFri, 13 Apr 2018 13:18:34 +0000http://unfundamentalists.com/?p=11153For a good number of years my dominant image of God was that of a Judge who presided in a heavenly courtroom and demanded payment from his human creation for breaking his law. Read More »

For a good number of years my dominant image of God was that of a Judge who presided in a heavenly courtroom and demanded payment from his human creation for breaking his law. The God I imagined was bound to the law and intolerant toward sin. God demanded punishment—by death. So God sent Jesus, God’s unique Son, to die, so that God’s justice would be satisfied, and God would be free to release the rest of humankind from the penalty and punishment they deserve for having transgressed God’s law and offended God’s justice.

But then, at some point on my journey when I gave myself permission to question and even doubt, I began to wonder why God’s unique Son would have to die such a cruel death by execution in order to satisfy some broken law, particularly since God is the one who makes the law in the first place. God can change a law anytime God wants to, I reasoned. So why would God require this sort of tit-for-tat, quid pro quo justice that would demand the sacrifice of a human life? I began to wonder how this arrangement was that much different than what primitive peoples did when they offered up human lives and, later, animals to appease the anger of their gods?

These questions led to more questions. So I started down that “slippery slope.” In one sense it was and continues to be a liberating ride, sort of like the kid who finally gets up enough nerve to ride the roller coaster and afterward wants to ride it over and over again. But in other ways it was and continues to be a painful ride, because of those who want me to keep it to myself. Sharing my journey has come with both personal and institutional costs (we have lost church members on account of it, but gained some too). Anyone who has traveled this path knows, as some of you know, that once you give yourself the freedom to question, and once you discover liberating and transforming truth, there’s no going back.

As I reflected on the stories of Jesus with new understanding, I wondered how I could have missed the central message that makes the good news good news. I realized that Jesus’s dominant image of God was not a God who sits upon a judgment throne far above his subjects demanding punishment for breaking the law. Rather, Jesus’s dominant image of God was that of an “Abba”—a loving father or mother who is intimately aware and engaged in the life of his or her children. I realized then that Jesus considered all people to be children of God, worthy of love.

God forgives because God loves us with an eternal love, and wants nothing more than to be in relationship with us. When Jesus was criticized for eating with all manner of people, tax collectors, and other “sinners” whom the religious leaders condemned as lawbreakers, Jesus said, “Go learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice’” (Matt. 9:13). The gospel of Jesus is not about a sacrificial offering required to pay off a divine penalty. Rather, it is about sacrificial love committed to the good of others, even to the point of death on a cross (death by Roman crucifixion). This is how Jesus’s life and death constitute an “atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:7-12). We now “live through him” (1 Jn. 4:9) by loving others the way he loves all of us.

Maybe you have seen the roadside billboard that reads: Real Christians love their enemies. I don’t know who is responsible for that sign, but when I first saw it I said, “Yes, finally, the gospel of Jesus.” God unconditionally forgives us and commands us to do the same to others because God wants us to live free of our grievance stories, and free of our need for revenge and retaliation. There is no personal healing or relational healing without forgiveness.

Forgiveness, of course, is not the same thing as trust. And trust is a necessary ingredient in any kind of restored relationship. Often, restitution is a vital part of reestablishing trust. But forgiveness itself is pure grace.

The gospel of Jesus is captured best in the parable of the waiting father in Luke 15. The father has already unconditionally forgiven his wayward son. When he sees him in the distance returning home, he runs out to embrace him, weeping tears of joy. Then he throws an extravagant welcome home party.

The gospel of Jesus is not about retributive justice. It’s about restorative justice that restores relationships and works for the common good of all people. It’s about good news for the poor, freedom for captives, liberation for the oppressed, sight for the blind, and spreading grace like scattering seeds (Luke 4:16-21).

This piece was first published in the Frankfort State Journal.
Photo via Unsplash.

Dr. Chuck Queen is the pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church, Frankfort, Kentucky. You can find links to his sermons and writings on his Facebook page and his webpage.

]]>http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/real-christians-forgive/feed/0111539 Responses to the Willow Creek Accusations That Reveal Everything Wrong with Evangelicalismhttp://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/9-responses-to-the-willow-creek-accusations-that-reveal-everything-wrong-with-evangelicalism/
http://unfundamentalists.com/2018/04/9-responses-to-the-willow-creek-accusations-that-reveal-everything-wrong-with-evangelicalism/#commentsWed, 11 Apr 2018 04:34:12 +0000http://unfundamentalists.com/?p=11162Willow Creek, a Chicago-area megachurch, is scrambling under the light of the recent allegations of sexual misconduct against its lead pastor, Bill Hybels. Read More »

Willow Creek Community Church, a Chicago-area megachurch, is scrambling under the light of the recent allegations of sexual misconduct against its lead pastor, Bill Hybels. Last night, Hybels announced that he was resigning from Willow Creek due to the controversy, although he continues to claim that the allegations against him are false.

The Hybels are a well-connected and influential evangelical family and their supporters have rallied around them. Both the church itself and Hybels’s daughter Shauna Niequest have posted publicly in social media spaces, receiving thousands of comments in support of the Hybels family. This is understandably a difficult time for Bill Hybels’s wife and children and anyone else who has been influenced by him, and their feelings matter. But what matters more is a fair investigation into the disturbing patterns of behavior and cover-ups Hybels is being accused of.

The responses from churchgoers and fans of Hybels’s books and ministry are beyond problematic. They are everything that is wrong with evangelical culture and the reason these things are allowed to happen in secrecy for so long. They demonstrate blind support of their leaders and disregard for logic or facts, with a generous side of victim blaming. Here are some of my favorites:

“Willow Creek changed my life therefore these accusations must be lies.”You can be grateful for the way a church or pastor has shaped you and still be open to the possibility he may be a womanizer and abuser of power.

“Spiritual discernment is more important than investigation or logic.”You are an intuitive person? Awesome for you! You still don’t get to control the conversation or discredit logic. God might speak to you, but she doesn’t speak to me so let’s just stick to the facts surrounding the investigation.

“Accusing people is the worst sin ever.”I kind of feel like I could list some other behavior that’s more “the likeness of Satan.”

“These allegations should not be taken seriously.”Um … excuse me? I mean at least Willow Creek Association is pretending to take them seriously, right? You can hold on to hope that the accusations aren’t true while remaining open to the possibility that they are. Maybe this guy should work for Willow’s PR.

“I don’t like the manner in which the victims and accusers are coming forward so we should focus on that instead of the content of their message.”This is a classic case of deflection. Also, what is it with evangelical’s obsession with keeping things insular? They can quote Matthew 18 all they want but it’s this kind of insular thinking that has allowed these cases to go on for so long under the radar.

“#LessControversy”
The “why can’t we all get along” argument falls apart when the accusations of conduct are serious. This isn’t a water-under-the-bridge type of situation. Peace isn’t actual peace if there is injustice. Speaking up is not a sin.

“It’s a conspiracy.”Just because you don’t like what the news says, or what the victims say, it doesn’t make them evil. Also, newspapers don’t pay for stories. If they did, they wouldn’t be going out of business at the rate they are.

“My experiences with him are good therefore he cannot be bad.”This type of response was by far the most common. Your memories of Bill Hybels can be true and these women’s experiences can also be true. It sucks to do the hard work of deciding whether the good memories you have of a person were true, or if you knew a façade all along. I’ve had to do this recently in my personal life, and it was awful. But I never once didn’t believe the victims. I only grieved over loss of the person I thought I knew. People who do good things can also do very bad things.

“He’s funny so he can’t be a womanizer.”Wait, are we talking about Bill Hybels or Bill Cosby now?

You can add policies and procedures and processes, but until the evangelical church deals with these deep-seated mindsets, the impact will be minor. This is the culture that must change.